Tod Bolsinger

Underlying Issues and A Real Possibility for the Future: the Mid Council Commission Report #ga220 #pcusa

“It is possible to prepare for the future without knowing what it will be. The primary way to prepare for the unknown is to attend to the quality of our relationships, to how well we know and trust one another...

There is one core principle for developing these relationships. People must be engaged in meaningful work together if they are to transcend individual concerns and develop new capacities."
                                                                                                Margaret Wheatley

From the Mid Council Report to the General Assembly

“Also prominent in the Commission’s polling of the Church were the expressions of deep and abiding mistrust – fueled by a general absence of meaningful connection to the national, regional and even local judicatories.”

We do not believe that this is due to any individual persons acting in any particularly egregious and untrustworthy ways.  Indeed, we believe that the great majority of General Assembly, presbytery, and synod staff members and leaders are trustworthy people.  But the system itself fosters mistrust.

Generations of attempting to solve problems by constitutional fiat have left us without the ability to build relationships with those who deeply disagree with us.  We have trusted that our membership in presbyteries and synods, and our participation in council deliberative processes and committee assignments, would be context enough to build trust.  Once again, a reliance on compliance with regulation has not only sapped our creativity, it has made it impossible for us to give ourselves enough “room” to trust each other again.  Indeed, at the center of the Commission’s own work of deliberation was a commitment to transparency through our entire process.  We have used media, including social media, to engage in a conversation with the entire church.  We have traveled many miles, engaged in numerous conversations, and listened deeply to people who disagree with each other (and often ourselves!) about the causes of concern and the potential future of the church.  We have engaged people from across various spectrums in a conversation with full disclosure, even taking our most provocative proposals to the church before the final report was finished to allow input.  Within the Commission itself, we have come to realize that, for the sake of the mission, nothing can substitute for taking the time to build relationships, work through conflicts, and get beyond the stereotypes that we each bring into any circumstance. Indeed, we needed to learn to trust each other enough to become comfortable with discussing, debating, and finally deciding to bring even these proposals to the church.

Perhaps the greatest effect of our proposals is that it will by necessity bring the church closer.  Now, for congregations to have more flexibility they will necessarily practice discernment within both presbytery and General Assembly processes.  While the flexibility to experiment comes with built-in mechanisms to insure relational and constitutional fidelity, the true test of our trust will come as we allow room for others to create presbyteries that are different than our preferences and maybe even contradictory to our convictions. 

The Confession of 1967 has this poignant line: “The quality of their relation with other persons is the measure of the church’s fidelity.”   Trust is the life blood of a community.  Without rebuilding trust we will never have the quality of relationships that we desire.  We are under no illusions about the sorry state of trust in our denomination and know that our proposals will not pass through the Assembly without it.  We also believe that if we engage in this provisional presbytery experiment, we will need to trust each other more than some of us think possible.  We hope that even the conversations about our recommendations will be a spur for rebuilding the trust to truly enable us to be a dynamic missional denomination again.

Jesus said, “The time has come…I will be with you only a little longer. And as I told the Jewish leaders, you will search for me, but you can’t come where I am going. ³⁴ So now I am giving you a new commandment: Love each other. Just as I have loved you, you should love each other. ³⁵ Your love for one another will prove to the world that you are my disciples.” John 13:31-35

---

The Mid-Council Commission: The Moderator’s Not-So-Hidden Agenda #PCUSA

“Regulation cannot do what the loss of trust has undone.”  Cynthia Bolbach, Moderator of the 219^th General Assembly

Perhaps the single greatest gift that this Commission can raise up for the church is to say as loudly and as clearly as we possibly can that there is a crisis of trust in our denomination and that it, more than anything else, is the single greatest threat to the vitality and future existence of the church. 

Congregational leaders don’t trust presbyteries. Presbyteries don’t trust synods.  Synod leaders see themselves as the “breakwater” protecting the church from the General Assembly (which might be the least trusted system of all.)                         From the Mid Council Report,

 

It’s been interesting to listen to the responses to our Mid Council Report.  We have attempted to say as clearly as possible that our purpose has been, from beginning to end, to explore the structures that serve the church in a changing world.  We listened deeply to the church and we believe we have recommended to the church exactly what many asked for.

But then the discussion started.  On more than one occasion, people have tried as tactfully as possible to ask, “So what’s your real agenda?”

Ok. Here it is.  I do have an agenda.   I haven’t hidden it.  I have said it every time in every place that I have been asked to speak about the report.  But in case anybody wonders, let me just leave it on the table as clearly as I can say it. It’s the biggest issue in the church today.  I believe it is literally killing us. 

We don’t trust each other. 

Not at all. Not hardly at all.  We have even codified our lack of trust with our theology (“Presbyterians believe in ‘total depravity’ don’t you know?”).  And it shows up in like a full force wind every time anyone suggests a change in the way we relate to each other (even if the change is not quite as radical as what we suggest.)  

Did you hear it even in the question about the report?

There are even good reasons why we don’t.  Many, many have stories about suffering the effects of abuse, neglect, disrespect and, well, sin, that has brought us to this place.  Those stories need to be heard and we need to humbly keep reflecting on how very often we hurt each other and harm the witness of the body of Christ.  But we also need to learn to trust each other again. 

And how do we do that?  One of my mentors taught me that when what you are doing is NOT working, and you don’t know what to do, there are two things you must NOT do:

1. Doing whatever you have been doing.
2. Doing nothing.

In other words, doing anything new (especially if you will reflect on the new actions, learn from them and keep implementing the lessons learned) is a step in the right direction.

Our Mid Council Commission Report attempts to create the conditions for re-building trust by taking a pretty radical step: Trusting.   

We give power back to presbyteries and call them to rebuild trust with the pews.  Not top-down, but connectional.  Not blind trust, but transparent and accountable.  Not a radical reactionary change but provisional baby-steps of experimentation in the full light of day. 

If we really trusted each other, what kind of connectional system would we create?

The Mid Council Commission is trusting that if presbyteries are giving all the power and authority to serve their congregations with any structure that falls within our broad theological tradition, they will discover the future.

We will not rebuild trust without trusting. 

 

 

Discipleship in a Rapidly Changing World: What the Mid-Council Report is Really About #PCUSA

“How are those governing bodies best organized to be responsive both to the Spirit of Christ and the changing opportunities for discipleship? Are the structures of history the best platforms for carrying our mission into the future?”

Mid Councils, Discipleship and Change.  Those were the key issues that were before our Commission.  Not diversity, not denominational splintering, not the ongoing wrestling with ordination standards.  But, discipleship in a rapidly changing context.  And most pointedly: the ways that our mid-council structures are organized to serve or not serve our mission as followers of Jesus in changing world.

After almost two years of listening, studying, conversing and engaging the church with this big question, the Mid-Council Commission report is now offered to the church.  We propose to flatten the hierarchy, and experiment with flexibility.  We offer an extensive report on the many good and innovative mid-councils that are already adapting. We call for some ongoing conversations.  We have offered short videos, and a brief Powerpoint that captures our convictions of the kinds of structures need in the future: Flat. Flexible. Faithful. Those resources capture the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ of the report, so, let me introduce this discussion by offering the ‘why’. 

Why do we make these particular recommendations?   Because we believe that for the church to be “best organized to be responsive both to the Spirit of Christ and the changing opportunities for discipleship” we need to continue to make a clear shift in the priorities and purpose of our structures:

• Mid-Council structures must exist to serve the health and mission of congregations.
• Presbyteries must be given the power, and permission--for a season of experimentation--to structure in any way they discern will best serve the health and mission of its congregations.

This is based on a clear ‘adaptive’ principle: Genuinely transformative solutions to our biggest challenges come from giving the work back to the people most affected.  In this way, we see our report as further discernment of the work of the Spirit expressed in the PUP report, the passing of the new Form of Government, and Amendment 10-A: The people at the most local level of mission should determine (within broad constitutional and theological bounds) the form and structure that will best serve its congregations.

It also brings to the surface three deeper issues underlying the challenges in the church today and calls on PRESBYTERIES (not congregations alone and not even a General Assembly commission like ours) to address them.

1. Who has the power? We have often been asked.  “Why do we need to allow presbyteries to reorganize? Why aren’t ‘affiliations’ within existing presbyteries enough?”  Our answer:  Because a presbytery is where the power resides. In this regard, our report continues what PUP and Nfog started: Giving both the power and the responsibility to local elders working collaboratively within their presbyteries for creating the structure that will best serve the mission of its congregations. (And that was the goal of our report.)  Presbyteries are both “covenant communities of missional congregations” and the “corporate bishop.”  A presbytery is where the elder representatives of a congregation have the best opportunity to be heard.  A presbytery is the best and most local environment for experimenting with new ways of doing ministry.  With our recommendations presbyteries will have all the power and responsibility to discern the structure that best serves its congregations.
   
   In many places in the church, emerging groups, younger leaders, minority voices and innovative thinkers have challenged us to consider whether our current structure continues to favor those already in power. When power is given back to the people most affected by a challenge, then the adaptive creativity and new possibilities emerge from the people themselves and not from some top-down fix.  This “GA Commission” has discerned that the best thing the “GA” can do is give back power to the presbyteries themselves to discern “the best platforms for carrying our mission into the future”. 
   
   
2. How much permission can we entrust to presbyteries?  One church historian told us:  “Healthy churches are entirely about increasing trust. You can’t create structures to work around the lack of trust and you can’t regulate the building of trust.”  Our proposal suggests a bit less regulation and lot more trust.  With a few less regulations holding us together, we will need to continue to build the kind of relationships where people willingly invest in our “connectional” life together.  Indeed, we believe there is no other way.  Our Models Report also demonstrates that the presbyteries that have less regulations and more intentional relationship building have the least amount of contention and the most amount of innovative mission.  Our report builds on this by asking of the General Assembly: Can we entrust the presbyteries to determine the best structure of ministry for its congregations—including the organization of its boundaries and its membership. 
   
   And this last bit is the rub, for some.  Our recommendations entrust presbyteries with the power to create more flexible or porous boundaries.  To be clear, our report does NOT remove geographical presbytery boundaries.  Indeed, it does not change any boundaries whatsoever.  What it does allow is presbyteries to work more collaboratively within a LARGER geographical region to help discern the best ‘fit’ for a congregation.  All it does is remove the necessity for CONTIGUOUS boundaries.  This bit of flexibility adds lots of potential creativity. There could be smaller presbyteries within the boundaries of a larger one; presbyteries could be formed around mission needs or convictions; a single congregation in one presbytery could become a member of a different presbytery within its geographic region (if it was determined BY THE PRESBYTERY that it best served the mission of the congregation).  Multiple presbyteries could combine to be served by one administrative staff or presbyteries could align for more services without having to ‘force’ every congregation to go along.  .
   
   
3. Are we willing to try an experiment to discover new ways of being the church?  A Presbyterian pastor said, “We Presbyterians are so good at talking about problems, that after a while we think we have actually done something.”  Talking is good. Conversations are important.  Thoughtful, reflective discourse is necessary to any wise decision.  But, we need more than discussion right now, we need innovation.  We need to reflect and discuss while trying some new ways of being the church in mission.  We believe that a season of experimentation by presbyteries could engage the emerging leaders to collaborate more and foster the innovative capacity of the church to greater mission in the culture.  And that is our goal: Engagement. Energizing creativity. Collaboration.
   
   Our proposal does not require change at the congregational or presbytery level, but allows for a SEASON of creative experimentation. Further, it also does NOT allow any change to become a fixed part of our structure without further GA approval in 2021.  Many presbyteries will not want to reorganize at all.  Others will be energized by the potential discoveries of new ‘adjacent possibilities.”  Our recommendations would allow innovative leaders more flexibility, more power and more trust to help us all discover new ways of being a connectional church.   

Our report envisions a kind of Gamaliel moment for the church (Acts 5:38–39), a moment of allowing more freedom and insisting on more discernment to continue to discern the structures that are “responsive both to the Spirit of Christ and the changing opportunities for discipleship.”

Our conviction is that the mid council structure that will best adapt to the future is the one that will expect and enable PRESBYTERIES to experiment with whatever structure is necessary to serve the mission of its congregations. Presbyteries—that is missional congregations collaborating within the structure of a covenanted community—are our future. 

Our commission would ask the General Assembly:  You tasked us with listening to the whole church and convening a conversation about the changes in the world, please let this conversation continue in the presbyteries.  If the presbyteries want the power, trust, flexibility and responsibility of this season of reflective experimentation, they will pass the recommendations. If there is a better way, then let’s discover that together in local conversations. But one way or another, let’s continue to give this work back to the church!

The Mid Council Report Video Q & A #PCUSA #FB

 

 

 

For more on the report see the brief powerpoint, The MCC Report Made Simple: Flat. Flexible. Faithful.

Click here for more resources including the whole report and excerpts from it.

 

The Mid Council Report Video #7: What Does This Mean? #PCUSA #FB

 

For more on the report see the brief powerpoint, The MCC Report Made Simple: Flat. Flexible. Faithful.

Click here for more resources including the whole report and excerpts from it.

The Mid Council Report Video #6: Faithful Experiments #PCUSA #FB

 

For more on the report see the brief powerpoint, The MCC Report Made Simple: Flat. Flexible. Faithful.

Click here for more resources including the whole report and excerpts from it.

The Mid Council Report Video #5: Flexible Presbyterians? #PCUSA #FB

 

For more on the report see the brief powerpoint, The MCC Report Made Simple: Flat. Flexible. Faithful.

Click here for more resources including the whole report and excerpts from it.

The Mid Council Report Video #4: Flat: Synod becomes a Verb #PCUSA #FB

 

For more on the report see the brief powerpoint, The MCC Report Made Simple: Flat. Flexible. Faithful.

Click here for more resources including the whole report and excerpts from it.

The Mid Council Report Video #3: Organizing for a Changing World #PCUSA #FB

 

 

For more on the report see the brief powerpoint, The MCC Report Made Simple: Flat. Flexible. Faithful.

Click here for more resources including the whole report and excerpts from it.

The Mid Council Report Video #2: What We All Yearn For #PCUSA #FB

 

 For more on the report see the brief powerpoint, The MCC Report Made Simple: Flat. Flexible. Faithful.

Click here for more resources including the whole report and excerpts from it.